Re: Spamhaus Ignores U.S. Court?

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 18 Sep 2006 19:53:18 +0000, Paul Vixie <vixie () vix com> wrote:
> > > ... death by a thousand cuts ...
> >
> > I agree, I didn't suggest they should show up - simply pointing out
> > that the ONLY reason they lost was because they didn't.
>
> i have met some pretty irrational judges.  sometimes what matters is
> whether you're dressed properly (not too shabby, not too nice) and not
> the merits of your case.  judges who don't understand the issues don't
> usually want to ask questions which would demonstrate their ignorance,
> and so they sometimes proceed on "gut feeling" alone.  there is no such
> thing as a sure win in court.

Well, as my best lawyer friend would remind me, you're absolutely
correct. But still...

> > HOWEVER, if they get a positive finding in the US the spammers would
> > have to appeal and IF they got one they could beat it again, ending
> > with the USSC either taking or not taking the case and putting an end
> > to it once and for all.
>
> it would never get that far.  the US has a money-based political system,
> and corporations have most of the same rights as individuals, and there
> is a recognized right called "commercial free speech."  for the USSC to
> take a case there has to be a constitutional angle, and that'd be it.
>
> (past USSC comments have shown that there is no constitutional right to
> privacy, and i don't see us amending the constitution to add that, nor
> to add or delete gay marriage, nor to give women equal protection under
> the law, nor anything else.)

I'm not sure how women don't have equal protection under the law, but
that's aside the point. In reality, when the USSC generally discusses
companies as having "rights" they are or should be referring to the
stock holders' rights - not the corporate entity's. Our political
systems is not "based" on money either, it seems that way and often
works as if it were, but it isn't. Unfortunately *WE* don't appear to
be disgusted enough to change the way it looks...yet.

Finally, any "commercial free speech" there may be would have to
protect spamhaus customers equally - meaning they have the right to
enlist the services of spamhaus. I have the ability to block
television stations using a government required chip in my TV, and I
have the ability to hire someone to filter my e-mail. Spamhaus has the
right to say so-and-so is a spammer and if they believe they're being
libeled they have the right to sue. That's how this system works.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.